Talk:Poundbury

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Dorset Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

The bold font under the gallery images, is it necessary? Wikipedia should not be to bold, however it looks pretty neat! any other opinions? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong and unnecessary to use it here. The WP:MOS only mentions bold face for the page title in first sentence. For the sake of uniformity, style should be left to the style sheet (per WP:MOSCOLOR), or perhaps the gallery template. I will therefore delete it. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism of the plan for not using local materials is in fact not part of the plan, but should be a separate section headed Criticism that then voices critical or opposing views. Further, such comments should be documented as substantial criticism rather than a Wikipedia member voicing their opinion. There may be perfectly good reasons why materials were sourced other than locally, especially in the context of time. As the sustainability movement has grown, recently and rapidly, its values have evolved as well. These sorts of opinion needs to be set out in some proper external forum - not Wikipedia, and then only if it generates enough traction to merit documentation in an encyclopaedia, cite it here.

I put this as a talking point rather than change it, as I don't have the time to log in, do the proper research and make the changes right now.

This comment is released into the public domain, and should stand on its own merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.92.101 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

Do we know anything about Poundbury on a municipal level? Is it a civil parish on its own, or is it attached to Dorchester? Does it have a mayor or similar?

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poundbury is still considered to be part of Dorchester Town for all local government purposes: Dorchester Town Council and West Dorset District Council. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poundbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20131110135652/http://bettercities.net/article/20-poundbury-winning-converts-20839 to http://bettercities.net/article/20-poundbury-winning-converts-20839

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got "Learning from Poundbury"?

There is a citation in the article to a paper with this title. I cannot find it anywhere online. It makes one of the key points about the failure of Poundsbury to reduce reliance on cars. Can anyone please share it here? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the publication, but maybe you could contact the lead author? https://www.brookes.ac.uk/templates/pages/staff.aspx?uid=p0054496 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.122.37 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praise and criticism

I cannot see why this summing-up of the praise and criticism of Poundbury has been deleted from the lede…

Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale, and for echoing traditional local design features. But it has not reduced car use, as originally intended, and critics have described it as artificially nostalgic.

…in favour of this bland and obvious statement that tells us nothing:

The project has drawn a varied reception from architects, town planners and journalists. Valetude (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any comments, I replaced the earlier version today. Valetude (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred the cites and the superfluous request 'citation needed' beside the statement in the lede Poundbury has been praised for reviving the low-rise streetscape built to the human scale. But someone has reverted this. Cites belong in the main article, and should not compromise the simplicity which is the essence of a good lede. Valetude (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I added the new citations in response to the pointless 'citation needed' another editor added less than 24 hours after you made your edit, I agree that it is better to move them to the proper section. Herrikez (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

New section needed. S C Cheese (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]